This should pretty much wrap up where we are on this story. A few minutes ago, it was the lede story on the Fox website. With a handful of other stories on it, including their medical expert, Nicole Saphier, saying Abrams was simply wrong. They obviously thought they had something huge. Now, there's one story well down on the website, several dozen stories played higher .. and the headline: Looks like someone at Fox realized "oh shit, she's right ..."
‘Heartbeat bills’: Is there a fetal heartbeat at six weeks of pregnancy? So there isn’t a fully formed heart, so there can’t be a heartbeat. You can argue the intent of heartbeat laws but you can’t say Abrams is inaccurate. But I’m wondering why OP would compare SA to Hershel Walker in terms of lack of intelligence. Seems strange. Anybody else got any ideas? But according to experts, the term “fetal heartbeat” is misleading and medically inaccurate. “While the heart does begin to develop at around six weeks, at this point the heart as we know it does not yet exist,” said Dr. Ian Fraser Golding, a pediatric and fetal cardiologist at Rady Children’s Hospital San Diego. Instead, at six weeks, the embryo will develop a tube that generates sporadic electrical impulses that eventually coordinate into rhythmic pulses, he said. (Six weeks of pregnancy is closer to four weeks of actual development, because pregnancy is measured from the first day of a woman’s last period, before she is actually pregnant.) That’s far from a fully formed heart, with four chambers and valves that pump blood throughout the body. The correct medical term for what’s observed at this point is “cardiac activity,” said Dr. Sarah Prager, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at University of Washington Medicine. “It’s not until about 10 weeks that there is an actual structure that has four tubes and connects to the lungs and major vascular system like we would think of as a heart,” she said.
Although even though it is not an absolute either, it is much more logical to define a fetus as a human being at the point at which it has a functional brain rather than when it has a detectable heartbeat. The sole purpose of heartbeat laws is to outlaw virtually all abortions regardless of fetal developmental since a very large percentage of women aren't even aware that they are pregnant prior to the 6th week of pregnancy, the point at which the fetus has a detectable "heartbeat".
Hence the claim that this is all manufactured to control women, rather than being based on the science of human development.
I like to point out in these discussions but the definition of what is or isn't alive is fluid across species. Starfish are very much alive, yet don't have a heart, or blood for that matter. Jellyfish and anemones don't have brains at all, yet very much alive. I'm not comparing humans directly to these animals, that's ludicrous. But again, these are living animals without what is commonly used to define "life."
One of the silliest parts of the fetal heartbeat at 6 weeks laws is that at 6 weeks it isn't a fetus yet.
“Precise answers to these questions depend on an individual’s definitions, but the heart doesn’t have all of its major components until the beginning of the 10th week of pregnancy. Beating occurs earlier, at the very end of the fifth week or at the start of the sixth week, when the heart is immature and lacks most of its identifiable features, including its iconic chambers. The heartbeat shows up around this time or shortly after as a flickering motion on an ultrasound. Only later, after the 10th week or beyond, is a heartbeat audible with a Doppler fetal monitor.” When Are Heartbeats Audible During Pregnancy? - FactCheck.org
That's an interesting point. I'm not sure there's a single metric, but I have tended at least in discussions about abortion and end-of-life questions, to focus on consciousness, the ability ability to feel pain, and things along those lines. That's one reason why I don't feel the same about plants as I do about dogs. But I'm sure you could poke plenty of holes in my thinking.
@ThePlayer Let us know when you plan to come back and fix your original post where you called her dumb
She did not. Only magna cum laude from Spelman, a Harry Truman Scholar at UT-Austin, and a graduate of Yale Law, the top law school in the country. Very dumb lady.
The point isn't whether the fetus/embryo is alive, it's when it should be considered a human being. As I previously stated in other posts the answer to the question is really theological rather than biological. Almost everyone regardless of position on the abortion issue would agree that it's a living entity. Whether or not it should be considered a human being separate and apart from the mother is the issue and if there has to be a biological marker, brain function makes more sense than a "heartbeat" and an even more significant marker is probably the point in which it is no longer biologically dependent on the mother.
Not happening. As Tilly pointed out, it's this comment above everything else: “It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman’s body.”
Do you acknowledge this from an OB-GYN who works at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Or this from the head of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists? Also keep in mind how quickly Fox News bailed on the story. Going from the top of the website with multiple sidebars to buried well down on the page and just relying on reaction from an anti-abortion group.
Abrams is a weak politician and is struggling in her governor race against Brian Kemp. And despite the fact she was anti-abortion for much of her life, she is now going all in on the abortion issue to give her campaign to try to give her campaign a much needed jolt.
